(20-01-2013 01:22 AM)robotworld Wrote: For number 2, have you ever looked at pictures of the Sun, our nearest star? Here's a picture.
It's less "points" of light, more of giant burning nuclear fusion reactors. But just curious, how far do you think the stars are away from Earth?

Regarding point 3, you need to explain further. Show that radioactive decay can actually be changed by environmental influence. Explain why various radiometric dating procedures can yield the same result.

And point 4, I'll have you know that bacteria plays a huge role in the origin of the vast amount of biodiversity we have today. Also, you seem to perceive that all bacteria are bad, which is NOT the case. Heck, various species of bacteria serve as our defenses against other bacteria. Even so, feeding on plants can be considered as "feeding on dead flesh", because plants are living things as well. So, how does anything survive for that matter?

Side point: Are you able to reconcile the theory of evolution and Genesis? Show us how.

No one is 100% sure but going from Scripture I would estimate that there are several spherical structures into which they are set, with the outermost one being opaque and impenetrable. This last would have a radius of around 4.5 billion miles.

On 3, some modern research is concluding that the rates of radioactive decay is changing over time but they HAVE NO IDEA WHY (LINK)

How do I reconcile evolution with genesis? That's simple, I don't believe evolution is real.

4.5 billion miles? That's approximately a radius of 48.4AU (astronomical units) for your outermost sphere. Here's the thing. The solar system alone is larger than the sphere system you proposed. Even so, on what basis your model is valid? Can you provide some other evidence not based on scripture?

Well that's new. I'm not an expert in this field so I can't comment much. Below is one of the graphs I've obtained from the original research paper. Anyone well versed in statistics that can explain this graph, specifically the part on normalising data (left y-axis)? Based on the values I have doubts that such a change will be significant enough to warrant radiometric dating invalid.

To the last point. You don't believe that evolution is real? What if I provide you the [evidence] for evolution? In short, evolution of the ability to digest citrate by a population of E. Coli. Still, here's a question: What do you think evolution is?

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ

(20-01-2013 04:53 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote: No one is 100% sure but going from Scripture I would estimate that there are several spherical structures into which they are set, with the outermost one being opaque and impenetrable. This last would have a radius of around 4.5 billion miles.

On 3, some modern research is concluding that the rates of radioactive decay is changing over time but they HAVE NO IDEA WHY (LINK)

How do I reconcile evolution with genesis? That's simple, I don't believe evolution is real.

4.5 billion miles? That's approximately a radius of 48.4AU (astronomical units) for your outermost sphere. Here's the thing. The solar system alone is larger than the sphere system you proposed. Even so, on what basis your model is valid? Can you provide some other evidence not based on scripture?

Well that's new. I'm not an expert in this field so I can't comment much. Below is one of the graphs I've obtained from the original research paper. Anyone well versed in statistics that can explain this graph, specifically the part on normalising data (left y-axis)? Based on the values I have doubts that such a change will be significant enough to warrant radiometric dating invalid.

To the last point. You don't believe that evolution is real? What if I provide you the [evidence] for evolution? In short, evolution of the ability to digest citrate by a population of E. Coli. Still, here's a question: What do you think evolution is?

The problem you are coming up with is the same as the problems the sweary guy in the videos in the post above you has...namely trying to shoehorn the physical constraints of the heliocentric model into the geocentric model. Of course he also includes the oft-repeated claim that the speed of light in vacuum is constant.

Now this would cause trouble if it were actually true, which it isn't (LINK), not only this but the assumption that light is actually travelling in vacuum is troubled. The Michaelson-Morley experiment clearly demonstrated that the earth was set stationary in the aether, even though they had to explain their findings away to avoid incurring the wrath of the Atheistic scientific establishment. Light travelling through a medium like the aether would be moving SLOWER than the supposedly constant c.

Likewise your other measurements of the mass, distance, speed etc of celestial bodies show clear bias to fit them in with a preassumed model, they don't cause trouble for the Geocentric model since they aren't necessarily TRUE for the geocentric model.

And as for bacteria adapting over time, come back when you can show a bacterium growing hands, eyes and a big toe.

(20-01-2013 10:02 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote: The problem you are coming up with is the same as the problems the sweary guy in the videos in the post above you has...namely trying to shoehorn the physical constraints of the heliocentric model into the geocentric model. Of course he also includes the oft-repeated claim that the speed of light in vacuum is constant.

Now this would cause trouble if it were actually true, which it isn't (LINK), not only this but the assumption that light is actually travelling in vacuum is troubled. The Michaelson-Morley experiment clearly demonstrated that the earth was set stationary in the aether, even though they had to explain their findings away to avoid incurring the wrath of the Atheistic scientific establishment. Light travelling through a medium like the aether would be moving SLOWER than the supposedly constant c.

Likewise your other measurements of the mass, distance, speed etc of celestial bodies show clear bias to fit them in with a preassumed model, they don't cause trouble for the Geocentric model since they aren't necessarily TRUE for the geocentric model.

And as for bacteria adapting over time, come back when you can show a bacterium growing hands, eyes and a big toe.

Your ignorance is simply astounding.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(20-01-2013 06:09 AM)robotworld Wrote: 4.5 billion miles? That's approximately a radius of 48.4AU (astronomical units) for your outermost sphere. Here's the thing. The solar system alone is larger than the sphere system you proposed. Even so, on what basis your model is valid? Can you provide some other evidence not based on scripture?

Well that's new. I'm not an expert in this field so I can't comment much. Below is one of the graphs I've obtained from the original research paper. Anyone well versed in statistics that can explain this graph, specifically the part on normalising data (left y-axis)? Based on the values I have doubts that such a change will be significant enough to warrant radiometric dating invalid.

To the last point. You don't believe that evolution is real? What if I provide you the [evidence] for evolution? In short, evolution of the ability to digest citrate by a population of E. Coli. Still, here's a question: What do you think evolution is?

The problem you are coming up with is the same as the problems the sweary guy in the videos in the post above you has...namely trying to shoehorn the physical constraints of the heliocentric model into the geocentric model. Of course he also includes the oft-repeated claim that the speed of light in vacuum is constant.

Now this would cause trouble if it were actually true, which it isn't (LINK), not only this but the assumption that light is actually travelling in vacuum is troubled. The Michaelson-Morley experiment clearly demonstrated that the earth was set stationary in the aether, even though they had to explain their findings away to avoid incurring the wrath of the Atheistic scientific establishment. Light travelling through a medium like the aether would be moving SLOWER than the supposedly constant c.

Likewise your other measurements of the mass, distance, speed etc of celestial bodies show clear bias to fit them in with a preassumed model, they don't cause trouble for the Geocentric model since they aren't necessarily TRUE for the geocentric model.

And as for bacteria adapting over time, come back when you can show a bacterium growing hands, eyes and a big toe.

You still need to provide evidence other than scripture showing that your model is valid. Anyway, can you find a research paper that actually show that the change in the speed of light in the past is significant? Google Scholar helps a lot in finding papers. I would love to take a look at that paper.

The geocentric model is really, really outdated. You need to show HOW the measurements of celestial bodies do not fit in the geocentric model. Scientists have done their part in showing that the heliocentric model is valid. Now it's your turn to show otherwise.

To understand evolution, you first need to grasp the concept of small changes over time. But if you really want me to show you a bacterium that has grown limbs over the past years, easy. Look at a mirror. You are the result of billions of years of evolution, and it all started from the early prokaryotes, slowly adapting bit by bit. So, what exactly do you think evolution is? You still have not told me yet.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ

When these average evolution-is-false websites get peer reviewed by scientists and approved, then I'll take a look.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.

(20-01-2013 10:02 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote: The problem you are coming up with is the same as the problems the sweary guy in the videos in the post above you has...namely trying to shoehorn the physical constraints of the heliocentric model into the geocentric model. Of course he also includes the oft-repeated claim that the speed of light in vacuum is constant.

Now this would cause trouble if it were actually true, which it isn't (LINK), not only this but the assumption that light is actually travelling in vacuum is troubled. The Michaelson-Morley experiment clearly demonstrated that the earth was set stationary in the aether, even though they had to explain their findings away to avoid incurring the wrath of the Atheistic scientific establishment. Light travelling through a medium like the aether would be moving SLOWER than the supposedly constant c.

Likewise your other measurements of the mass, distance, speed etc of celestial bodies show clear bias to fit them in with a preassumed model, they don't cause trouble for the Geocentric model since they aren't necessarily TRUE for the geocentric model.

And as for bacteria adapting over time, come back when you can show a bacterium growing hands, eyes and a big toe.

Your ignorance is simply astounding.

This isn't ignorance anymore, this is flat-out stupid.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley

Quote:The Michaelson-Morley experiment clearly demonstrated that the earth was
set stationary in the aether, even though they had to explain their
findings away to avoid incurring the wrath of the Atheistic scientific
establishment.

I think this is the stupidest possible answer one could possibly imagine. WTF are you talking about, what aether and what Atheistic science establishment?

Can you make up something else, please?

I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.-Hunter S. Thompson

(21-01-2013 12:07 AM)Filox Wrote: And this is why I love the word - fucktard.

Quote:The Michaelson-Morley experiment clearly demonstrated that the earth was
set stationary in the aether, even though they had to explain their
findings away to avoid incurring the wrath of the Atheistic scientific
establishment.

I think this is the stupidest possible answer one could possibly imagine. WTF are you talking about, what aether and what Atheistic science establishment?

Can you make up something else, please?

Oddly, AtheismExposed didn't make it up. Albert Michelson and Edward Murley made it up.

What AtheismExposed did do was completely misunderstand the experiment and the results. And when I say "misunderstand" I mean he got it exactly 180 degrees backward. This experiment demonstrated that the earth WAS NOT suspended in aether. In fact, the experiment became what has been called the most famous failed experiment in history:

Actually, since even reading the first paragraph on Wikipedia could have provided the truth for our friend AthesimExposed, I'm going to assume he never even looked it up but rather he midlessly parroted the misinformation some other mindless Christian apologist spoonfed him.

The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. It attempted to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The negative results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, in which the stationary aether concept has no role. The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein

(21-01-2013 12:07 AM)Filox Wrote: And this is why I love the word - fucktard.

I think this is the stupidest possible answer one could possibly imagine. WTF are you talking about, what aether and what Atheistic science establishment?

Can you make up something else, please?

Oddly, AtheismExposed didn't make it up. Albert Michelson and Edward Murley made it up.

What AtheismExposed did do was completely misunderstand the experiment and the results. And when I say "misunderstand" I mean he got it exactly 180 degrees backward. This experiment demonstrated that the earth WAS NOT suspended in aether. In fact, the experiment became what has been called the most famous failed experiment in history:

Actually, since even reading the first paragraph on Wikipedia could have provided the truth for our friend AthesimExposed, I'm going to assume he never even looked it up but rather he midlessly parroted the misinformation some other mindless Christian apologist spoonfed him.

The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. It attempted to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The negative results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, in which the stationary aether concept has no role. The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution